What makes you so sure I'm white? You're quick to jump to that conclusion and immediately berating me for it? Thanks for proving to me that your "payback" attitude is equal to racism, effectively making you a racist.

Maybe you're not, but you're not doing a good job convincing us otherwise.

What makes you so sure I'm white? You're quick to jump to that conclusion and immediately berating me for it? Thanks for proving to me that your "payback" attitude is equal to racism, effectively making you a racist.

wow look who's talking about jumping to conclusions.
i wasn't sure you were white, that's why i put a question mark behind it and it refers to the concept of bias and perspective.

What makes you so sure I'm white? You're quick to jump to that conclusion and immediately berating me for it? Thanks for proving to me that your "payback" attitude is equal to racism, effectively making you a racist.

It doesn't fucking matter, the system will ALWAYS eventually collapse into a corporatist state. You are giving way too much power to the people who make the big money. You really thing someone like Alan Greenspan is this good caring guy who will run a fair business in the range of your capitalistic idea? Fuck no, the second this guy gets power, he's using it.

Without regulation, and with a small government, money will become power. We're already seeing the beginnings of it. I don't give an utter shit what system of capitalism Ron Paul supports, ANY of it is dangerous. History proves this.

How did these corporations get powerful in first place? Was it through government intervention? i.e corporate lobbying for government regulation that creates barriers to competitors entering the market, consumers' money becoming worth less due to the government magically injecting the economy with money out of thin air. Things definitely didn't get to this point by a totally free market (which there has never been in this country).

I happen to disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's stances on things but I definitely agree with a lot of what he says about the economy.

I don't know. Why does it matter? I'm not arguing that its been done in the past. That has fucking nothing to do with my point.

Your point was that non-interventionism is bad because we have a duty to help other countries. That has never really happened, it never will happen, and so clearly of the two things that actually have a possibility of happening non-interventionism is the preferable option

Your point was that non-interventionism is bad because we have a duty to help other countries. That has never really happened, it never will happen, and so clearly of the two things that actually have a possibility of happening non-interventionism is the preferable option

You can easily argue that it's selfish throwing away American lives in *insert war here* like Vietnam for an example that everyone can agree on.

You missed my point. He said Ron Paul does not believe in Lazzie-Faire Capitalism. Ron Paul does, because he's into the ASofE, and I looked around his offical web forum and no one seems to think he's not.

How did these corporations get powerful in first place? Was it through government intervention? i.e corporate lobbying for government regulation that creates barriers to competitors entering the market

lobbying is simply a way to bypass regulation and put influence in the powerful entity. In a free market, lobbying wouldn't happen simply because it wouldn't be needed. corporations can just do it and they ARE the power.

consumers' money becoming worth less due to the government magically injecting the economy with money out of thin air. Things definitely didn't get to this point by a totally free market (which there has never been in this country).

No, it got this way because of the path to it. Deregulation, trickle down economics, putting full trust into corporations who are too greedy to do anything. And yes, letting them get away with it is the governments fault, but to answer their weakness with removing them will only worsen the problem.

I happen to disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's stances on things but I definitely agree with a lot of what he says about the economy.

Even though his economic policies are archaic and would drive any country it's implemented into the ground?

Austrian views are heterodox and mainstream economists are generally critical of its methodology.[2][3][4][5] Whereas mainstream economists generally use economic models and statistical methods to model economic behavior, Austrian School economists argue that they are a flawed, unreliable, and insufficient means of analyzing economic behavior and evaluating economic theories. Instead, they advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a study called praxeology

Austrians generally hold that testability in economics and precise mathematical modeling of an economic market are virtually impossible.

I like some of his ideas but his domestic policies are fucking insane. Especially his pro life policies. Libertarian my ass. He thinks goverment has the RIGHT to an outgrowth in your body. It defeats the idea of libertarianism when you embrace the concept that a part of your body is now goverment property.

Lobbying is an attempt to influence government officials political decisions and we all have the ability to do it. (i.e writing letters to your government representatives) though of course not with the same force as a corporation handing out political donations (which is wrong). In a free market, lobbying for government regulation wouldn't even be permitted, so the government would not be able to create artificial barriers to trade which prevent new competition from coming into the market. The reason corporations "can just do it and they are the power" is because the government helped them get to that point by introducing tariffs and subsidies.

I'm not even sure what you mean by calling corporations "too greedy". They operate for profit, and how do you define when they are making "too much" profit. Do they not, when they make a lot of profits, reinvest their money? If it goes into banks, then banks have a motivation (profit through interest rates) to lend out money rather than hoard it, and so on.

The idea is that profit is supposed to be a motivating force, I think calling it "too greedy" is just misleading and ambiguous. The money that corporations receive does not simply just get stuffed under their mattresses and disappear from the economy, the idea is that the money gets reinvested and spent. The idea is that they have to provide what the consumer wants in order to maximize profit or no one will buy their stuff. Competing businesses will want to make the best possible product for consumers to gain their business and maximize their profit.

I'm also aware of Austrian economics being considered pseudoscientific, but I think that's just due to it's nature, it relies heavily on logic to make it's judgements and they do put forward reasonable arguments that I have not yet seen good refutations of. I don't commit myself to this school of thought, just saying they make decent arguments in favor of the laissez-faire approach.

I just find economic mindset's like Ron Paul's as funny just because it's basically the mindset that Regan adopted for the US (trickle-down economics/supply-side economics, or, give bonuses, benefits, tax-breaks, trust, etc into the corporate leaders/suppliers as it will theoretically trickle down to the consumer, therefore boosting the economy). After the US adopted trickle-down economics, we started to become one of the worlds largest creditor nations to the worlds largest debtor nation, and the economy never got back to the height it once had. Proof that it simply doesn't work, because it basically assumes corporations are out to get into the best interests of the US people. This ESPECIALLY accelerated when globalization happened - because now companies don't really have any reason to keep the majority of their workforce onshore, AND they get government benefits/bonuses/etc. Meanwhile, the US consumer sees none of this benefit at all, and we actually suffer because of globalization decreasing our spending power, further throwing the economy back into a shithole.

What did we have before reganomics? We had what FDR started as a part of the new deal, which is one of the factors that gave the US a massive economic boom, and recovered us from the great depression (along with WWII happening). Basically, we had demand-side economics. Where the CONSUMER got the tax breaks and bonuses to boost a capitalist economy going through a rescessive cycle, giving them inscentives to spend. AKA increasing demand, which boosts the economy.

You need this government intervention to get over ressecions. Recessions are proven to happen in any capitalist system, because of how it works. It follows trends of economic boom to economic downturn. Demand-side economics is used during recession, to make it so the recession isn't an extreme one (like the Great Depression), and to help the economy recover quicker (which is usually does). Supply-side economics does the "same thing"... except it doesn't actually work, as we give power to the suppliers, who turned out to jsut run off with the profits, and when Globalization happenend, they used it to develop factories and relationships offshore in places like china. Which means, the economy never truely recovered.

We still use supply-side to this day, it's why the huge bank bailout had to happen. And its what people like Ron Paul adovocate, because clearly they didn't get the memo that corporations do not exsist in the best interests of the US population, they exist in the best interests of their global profit levels. Granted to Ron Paul's credit, I don't think he intends to give lots of tax breaks to corporations, rather he intends to do nothing - which will just mean the recessions that happen in the US can actually go into extremes, both in length and severity.

Either way, we're going to see the economy suffer and the US never fully get out of debt situations untill we switch back to demand-side economics, like what we had before Regan was around. This will never ever happen though, unless we get an iron willed politician who is uncorruptable to come around and put it into place. Because right now, it's impossible to switch back to demand side in our current situation, due to how powerful corporate lobbysts are, and how much it is in their best interests to keep supply-side going.

It occurs to me that Ron Paul is Ra's Al Ghul from the Batman series. Both are on a massive crusade that they think will save the world, but they go about it in an incredibly dangerous, ineffective, and even hypocritical manner. Each one has a group of fiercely loyal followers who will defend them to the death no matter the circumstances. They are both incredibly old and seemingly immortal. They both have started to go crazy with their age.
There are far more ways they are alike, that is just a few.

The idea is that profit is supposed to be a motivating force, I think calling it "too greedy" is just misleading and ambiguous. The money that corporations receive does not simply just get stuffed under their mattresses and disappear from the economy, the idea is that the money gets reinvested and spent. The idea is that they have to provide what the consumer wants in order to maximize profit or no one will buy their stuff. Competing businesses will want to make the best possible product for consumers to gain their business and maximize their profit.

Uh yeah it kind of fucking does. This is the MAIN reason why Ron Paul's trickle down style economics has failed in the past. Reagan proved what a failure it was - the money did NOT trickle down. It stayed in the top.

If you want to tell me that corporations are these essential organs to an economy, than maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how they historically operate.

Uh yeah it kind of fucking does. This is the MAIN reason why Ron Paul's trickle down style economics has failed in the past. Reagan proved what a failure it was - the money did NOT trickle down. It stayed in the top.

If you want to tell me that corporations are these essential organs to an economy, than maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how they historically operate.

If you want to say that corporations are not essential organs to an economy, then maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how economies without corporations and companies have fared historically.

If you want to say that corporations are not essential organs to an economy, then maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how economies without corporations and companies have fared historically.

Such as?

I'm not saying to remove corporations completely, and I'm going to say this again because I know you have an utterly shitty time understanding points - I AM NOT SAYING to COMPLETELY remove corporations.

I am saying they need to be watched like a fucking hawk because they can never be trusted.

I'm not saying to remove corporations completely, and I'm going to say this again because I know you have an utterly shitty time understanding points - I AM NOT SAYING to COMPLETELY remove corporations.

I am saying they need to be watched like a fucking hawk because they can never be trusted.

Edited:

Do you want me to repeat the point, or has it registered?

You contradict yourself more than the fucking Mitt Romney campaign dude.

"If you want to tell me that corporations are these essential organs to an economy, than maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how they historically operate. "

You contradict yourself more than the fucking Mitt Romney campaign dude.

"If you want to tell me that corporations are these essential organs to an economy, than maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how they historically operate. "

So are corporations essential organs to an economy or not?

They aren't anymore essential then any small shop or company. They simply exist in a market based economy, they aren't essential, nor are they malignant. See? Critical thinking skills. you should try them.

Edited:

And I asked for an example, you didn't provide one. Just another wacky attempt to zing me.

They aren't anymore essential then any small shop or company. They simply exist in a market based economy, they aren't essential, nor are they malignant. See? Critical thinking skills. you should try them.

Edited:

And I asked for an example, you didn't provide one. Just another wacky attempt to zing me.

BUT YOU ARE SAYING THEY'RE MALIGNANT FAHGFKHAG

"I am saying they need to be watched like a fucking hawk because they can never be trusted."
"Deregulation, trickle down economics, putting full trust into corporations who are too greedy to do anything."
"You really thing someone like Alan Greenspan is this good caring guy who will run a fair business in the range of your capitalistic idea? Fuck no, the second this guy gets power, he's using it. "

Seriously, do you fucking proofread your posts or do you say whatever spouts up in your fucking simple mind? It's absolutely unbelievable how devoid you are of even basic cognitive reasoning skills.

This is your fucking thought process:

Governor Goblin: Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit!
Someone else: You just said a bunch of bullshit.
Governor Goblin: NO I NEVER SAID ANY OF THAT WTF YOU ARNT SMART UR DUMB!

You literally sound like a 15 year old kid who's trying to argue socialism to his fucking classmates. "Hurr no capitalism is bad even tho i dont even know the definition of capitalism!! if u dont agree with me ur fuckin rush limbaugh and also retarded lol"

You are saying the equivalent of "The lungs aren't an essential organ because the heart is an essential organ!" That's absolutely preposterous, and you, as an alleged EMT(I seriously have doubts considering how little brain function you have) should know exactly why. You can't say that something isn't essential because something else is. Corporations serve a perfectly legitimate and useful purpose in a market economy(which by the way is the ONLY economy genre that has been shown to work on both small and large scales).

By the way, you are saying that corporations need to be watched over and regulated, when you espouse a system that doesn't fucking do that! Corporations and special interests currently dictate regulations. You are saying a system that would work to properly regulate the economy isn't going to work because it would devolve into the system we currently have? What. The. Fuck.

Of course a system needs some form of regulation, but it doesn't need near the amount of regulation currently in place now. What we really need is a system that doesn't let corporate and special interests influence the politicians. We need a system where regulations are not written by corporations, but written by the people of the united states.

"I am saying they need to be watched like a fucking hawk because they can never be trusted."
"Deregulation, trickle down economics, putting full trust into corporations who are too greedy to do anything."
"You really thing someone like Alan Greenspan is this good caring guy who will run a fair business in the range of your capitalistic idea? Fuck no, the second this guy gets power, he's using it. "

A smart person (read: not you), would be able to put 2 (regulation is needed) and 2 (corporations cannot be trusted by their lonesome) together.

Seriously, do you fucking proofread your posts or do you say whatever spouts up in your fucking simple mind? It's absolutely unbelievable how devoid you are of even basic cognitive reasoning skills. [/quote]
Seriously, you have this little bitch fit whenever I post something. It's so bad it clouds your logic.

Speaking fairly here, I made the point clear. and I'm going to point this out because you are absolutly fucking incabalbe of understanding points.

A: Corporations are not to be trusted.
B: In response to your point that they need to exist, I'm responded that they simply be.

This is your fucking thought process:

Governor Goblin: Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit!
Someone else: You just said a bunch of bullshit.
Governor Goblin: NO I NEVER SAID ANY OF THAT WTF YOU ARNT SMART UR DUMB!

You literally sound like a 15 year old kid who's trying to argue socialism to his fucking classmates. "Hurr no capitalism is bad even tho i dont even know the definition of capitalism!! if u dont agree with me ur fuckin rush limbaugh and also retarded lol"

Oh hey look, an argument you made up, I'm so glad we're arguing what you think I'm saying. Expert fucking debating. I don't have a gold star for you, sorry.

You are saying the equivalent of "The lungs aren't an essential organ because the heart is an essential organ!" That's absolutely preposterous, and you, as an alleged EMT(I seriously have doubts considering how little brain function you have) should know exactly why.

lmao, just want to let you know, an economy can be likened to an organic body, but it actually isn't. Go fucking figure! (I really hope you aren't saying that as an EMT, I have to know how economies work. Like, we deal in medicine, not finances. You may want to google what a 'medical profession' is.)

What is your point? I never mentioned heart or lungs. The word organs was literally just another way of saying 'important'. It's called a metaphor, do you know what a metaphor is?

What the holy hell are you talking about? I never said they aren't essential because something else is.

Corporations serve a perfectly legitimate and useful purpose in a market economy.

You do realise a corporation is essentially just a big company, right? So saying they somehow have this important role in fucking economies is flawed. My point is, if you can understand it, and I will post it exactly six times for it to seep deep into that thick as pig shit skull of yours, is that corporations aren't malignant to the workings of an economy, they, however can be very harmful to the people who are in the economy. They can exist fine, but they are not to be trusted. And require strict regulation.

Again,
- corporations aren't malignant to the workings of an economy, they, however can be very harmful to the people who are in the economy. They can exist fine, but they are not to be trusted. And require strict regulation.
- corporations aren't malignant to the workings of an economy, they, however can be very harmful to the people who are in the economy. They can exist fine, but they are not to be trusted. And require strict regulation.
- corporations aren't malignant to the workings of an economy, they, however can be very harmful to the people who are in the economy. They can exist fine, but they are not to be trusted. And require strict regulation.
- corporations aren't malignant to the workings of an economy, they, however can be very harmful to the people who are in the economy. They can exist fine, but they are not to be trusted. And require strict regulation.
- corporations aren't malignant to the workings of an economy, they, however can be very harmful to the people who are in the economy. They can exist fine, but they are not to be trusted. And require strict regulation.
- corporations aren't malignant to the workings of an economy, they, however can be very harmful to the people who are in the economy. They can exist fine, but they are not to be trusted. And require strict regulation.

There, did you read it? Okay, I can tell you'll just make up another argument anyway so this was useless.

(which by the way is the ONLY economy genre that has been shown to work on both small and large scales)

Except that most modern countries are slowly abandoning it and the most capitalist of the countries is in an utterly shitty state right now? Oh and that every policy or theory implemented in the US, for example trickle-down, has collapsed into a colossal fucking failure.

By the way, you are saying that corporations need to be watched over and regulated, when you espouse a system that doesn't fucking do that!

I was under the impression Charles Fourier, Saint-Simon, and of course Henry Thoreau; as well as all these other influential socialist thinkers were against the deregulating aspects of capitalism. Hell, Saint-Simon supported it because he felt unregulated business got in the way of scientific advancement; agree or not, he is still is considered highly in the socialist system

Corporations and special interests currently dictate regulations. You are saying a system that would work to properly regulate the economy isn't going to work because it would devolve into the system we currently have? What. The. Fuck.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

I'm saying deregulation is bad, how the hell did you get... THAT out of what I said?

Of course a system needs some form of regulation, but it doesn't need near the amount of regulation currently in place now.

Uh yeah it kinda fucking does. Less regulation during Reagan helped CAUSE this fucking mess. Following that path isn't going to help.

What we really need is a system that doesn't let corporate and special interests influence the politicians.

uh yeah, and capitalism isn't going to help -at all-

We need a system where regulations are not written by corporations, but written by the people of the united states.

And how do you propose they do that?

Your answer to curb corporatism is to elect Ron Paul and create more capitalism will not work. It's not designed to work - you really think capitalism gives a shit about how a company makes money?

Education
He wishes to get rid of the Department of Education because, besides the usual unconstitutionality arguments, it achieves nothing. And I agree. We have poured billions into the federal education system for decades and it has gotten us no where in education levels. The US is constantly falling behind in education and the government's response is to pass stupid laws like No Child Left Behind.

There's a phrase in my geography class used to describe Russia's influence over it's eastern end - "Distance decay". It means, the further something gets from the core, the less influence the core has. And that's what I feel I see in the federal government with education. The distance between the school down my street to the high offices in the Depart. of Ed. is too great.

Foreign Policy

I'm sure we'll all agree on this one - noninterventionism. America should stay out of the internal affairs of every single nation on this planet. Not only do we get many American lives slaughtered, but the civilians of the regions we occupy.

Our constant interference in the affairs of other nations is what made 9/11 happen. Bin Laden said it himself in his speech about the attacks. Yet instead of doing the logical thing and withdraw, we invade more places, displace more populations and kill more Americans and foreigners alike. What does that doe? Nothing but fuel the next terrorist attack.

Just as such, we should cut off foreign aid. The government hasn't a right to take money from you that you justly earned and throw it away to some dictator overseas. That money is yours, the least the government can do is spend it on helping you in some way.

Pro-Life

He's against abortion, I know that much. But honestly, I have yet to read any of the chapters in any of his books on the subject because he always repeats a graphic personal story of his regarding the topic that I just can't stomach myself to go through.

But I should remind you that he is 100% pro-life, which means he opposes capital punishment. He morally opposes it on all levels of government, but holding true to his belief in the Constitution, he allows for state held executions. As for the federal government, he is strongly opposed to it.

I can list other topics, but later, as I have to head to bed.

Edited:

Sales tax isn't the only thing he plans to use to replace income tax. He aims to reform tariffs and import taxes as well. I forget how, exactly.

But a big claim of his against income tax is that the federal government should not be wildly spending so much money that they need the income tax to begin with. Everyone freaks out that the government will have no money if he gets rid of income tax, but you have to remember that he also plans on cutting a HUGE amount of government spending as well.

Education:
Just because something is not working does not mean you need to completely eradicate it. The best way to fix the educational system is to hold teachers more accountable and more easily fired. Emulating the French central educational system by regularly checking on teachers and paying them based on performance, and eliminating tenure would be the best way to go, and would be more effective if implemented on a Federal level instead of trying to get it done 50 times over.

Foreign Policy:
I somewhat agree with you on not intervening as much, but a couple things you said trouble me deeply.
First of all, do not ever try to rationalize something by quoting Bin Laden. No amount of US interventionism warranted an attack that cost 3000 American lives. Osama had no excuse, he was making up shitty ones.
Second of all, all foreign aid is in the interests of the United States. Rebuilding Afghanistan is a way ro make sure they stop breeding terrorists, and giving money to Israel ensures that they continue to help us out in the Middle East (even though they can be really shitty Allies half the time).
Thirdly, Foreign Aid is not even that huge a part of the budget, we can work on cutting a lot of other things out first.

Pro-Life:
You kinda glossed over how Anti-Choice Ron Paul is. I do not care why he is Anti-Choice, all that matters is that he is, and that he intends to take that view into consideration as a Politician, which is against his own principals of letting people choose things for themselves. Now, I am not naive enough to think that he could ever succeed in banning Abortion completely, but I do not want a President with the intention to, even if I agreed with him on everything else.
His anti Capital Punishment is admirable but does not make up for his Pro-Lifeness.

Neither do police, paramedics, firefighters, postal workers or anyone else who works in PUBLIC FUCKING SERVICES you giant nonce.

We get something called certification and licensing. You don't need a fucking degree to know how to do tracheal intubation or splint a broken femur.

I knew police didn't have to, but I never felt safe around them either.

Whatever, it's fine. I just thought you guys were educated, versus just getting a certificate, since your job involves saving lives and shit. I don't particularly want my health being put in the hands of someone who is uneducated, but I guess it's just something you gotta live with.

I knew police didn't have to, but I never felt safe around them either.

Well I can't help your paranoia.

Whatever, it's fine. I just thought you guys were educated, versus just getting a certificate, since your job involves saving lives and shit. I don't particularly want my health being put in the hands of someone who is uneducated, but I guess it's just something you gotta live with.

Yeah, anything less than a degree ISN'T education.

My god you live in a black and white world.

Edited:

You know what, no, this bothers me, what the fuck is in a degree that an EMT can learn that isn't in a certification course?

USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES

February 2006
22,237 Posts

I don't know how rigorous your certification course is, but I know for a fact nurses need to be college educated. I just figured you guys were about as educated and knowledgeable as nurses. I think it comes down to knowing how to operate the tools, as well as maintain them. Also, knowing how to properly administer medications to various types of people.

Pretty much a certification course is designed to teach you everything you need to know about a specific career. Degree shows that you have an education in a specific field of knowledge. So an EMT certification course will teach someone everything they need to know to be an EMT, while a degree in medicine means a person has studied medicine and what it involves.

Nurses need to do highly extensive care taking over a long course of time. On average, we spend less than an hour with a patient. Nurses can spend up to several months.

Personally, I am very knowledgeable in medical matters - however, I don't use half of it. It's pre-hospital care for a fucking reason. I'm not going to cure your god damn Angina on the way to the hospital.

Certification course goes over every medication we can administer legally, all the tools on an ambulance, and how to maintain them which we do at the beginning of every single shift.

This isn't the thread for this, if you're curious, PM me and I will cure your ignorance on this manner.